ADA Tejas (LCA) News and Discussions

[nitesh]

more prototypes

Now, team LCA gearing up for fifth naval prototype

 

[ashicjose]

Nice picture bro.

 

[Rahul Singh]

Although ADA is yet to decide whether the prototype will be a fighter or a trainer,

There is higher chances that NP-5 will be a dual seat trainer. Reason being is size of air intake which is going to be enlarged in NP-2 but is same as IAF version in NP-1 making NP-1 virtually useless. However i am far from getting idea behind developing another Mk-1 prototype. Why they are building it when it has already been discovered that NP-1 lacks power and can't safely take off from carrier or even from SBTF and also its landing gear is bulky and has to be replaced with freshly designed one? Is that so hard to qualify Navy specific avionics and LEVCON using one or two prototypes?

 

[Apollyon]

more prototypes

Now, team LCA gearing up for fifth naval prototype

summing up this article :

there will be 5 N-LCA prototypes (NP-1 already flight tested)
NP-1 and NP-2 will be of Mk-1 Standard of IAF LCA
NP-3 NP-4 will be of Mk-2 Standard of IAF LCA which is yet to take-off .....

So NP-1 and NP-2 are mere a "Prototype" which are just used to test various sub-systems, strengthened undercarriage, hinge, etc., which might eventually go in to N-LCA Mk-2

NP-1 - twin-seater trainer, powered by GE-404
NP-2 - single seat fighter, powered by GE-404

NP-3 NP-4 - design finalized, powered by GE-414

NP-5 - , powered by GE-404 .....

 

[A chauhan]

India's Naval LCA Flies but Needs More Power
Published May 5, 2012 | By admin
SOURCE: AIN ONLINE

The naval prototype of India's Tejas light combat aircraft (LCA) made its first test flight on April 27. Already delayed by four years, the program still faces design concerns, including weight. Strengthening of the rear airframe for carrier operations, and the addition of an arrestor hook, has made the aircraft about 1,000 pounds overweight.

"The naval variant of the LCA will require the F414 Enhanced Performance Engine [EPE] providing up to 26,500 pounds of thrust, a 20-percent boost," an Indian Navy official told AIN. General Electric and Boeing have proposed the EPE for future versions of the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, with a new fan, compressor and turbine, but it is still in development. India has ordered 99 F414-INS6 engines to power Mk2 versions of the Tejas, but they are believed to offer the standard 22,000 pounds of thrust. The prototype and limited series production Tejas Mk1s–including the naval prototype–are powered by GE F404-IN20 engines that produce 17,700 pounds. India ordered 41 of these after development problems with the indigenous Kaveri engine that was supposed to power the LCA.

Indian Defense Minister A.K. Anthony attributes delays to the naval LCA to "technical complexities, non-availability of infrastructure and critical components and technology denial regimes, extended user trials and the failure of some of the components during testing." EADS has been providing technical assistance. The naval LCA schedule is supposed to align with construction of India's first indigenous aircraft carrier, due to be completed in 2014. To facilitate proving the aircraft for carrier operations, a shore-based test facility is being set up at Naval Air Station Goa replicating an aircraft carrier with a ski jump for launch and arresting gear for deck recovery. The takeoff area is ready, and completion of the landing area is scheduled for year-end. The cost of developing the naval LCA has escalated from the initially sanctioned $186 million to $336 million.

Over the next decade the Indian Air Force (IAF) plans to form six Tejas squadrons, four of them flying the Mk2 version. The first squadron is slated to deploy by July next year, to Sulur airbase in Tamil Nadu, but this date appears likely to slip to the end of next year. The preliminary design of the Mk2 powered by the F414 has been completed. The first flight is expected by 2014, around the time the Tejas Mk1 is declared fully operational. The IAF has said it will buy at least 83 Mk2s if the variant meets performance requirements.

Meanwhile, development of the Kaveri engine continues with Snecma, which has been providing technical assistance. The Kaveri is still considered an alternative engine for the LCA, and a spin-off version could power India's proposed Unmanned Strike Air Vehicle. The ninth Kaveri engine prototype was integrated with an Il-76 testbed aircraft at the Gromov Flight Research Institute in Russia last year.
India's Naval LCA Flies but Needs More Power | idrw.org

...more delays

 

[Kunal Biswas]

 

[p2prada]

All trainers will have GE F-404 and not F-414. It reduces costs because the engines don't need to be dumped. Apart from that the trainers don't need so much power in the first place.

 

[Rahul Singh]

Duel seat LCAs are not just trainers but Combat conversion Trainer and will have all the features of fighter at bit reduced fuel capacity. Don't know what IAF wants from its duel seat Tejas but Navy will surely use them in combat and for that they will need F-414 equipped trainers, also it is said that F-404 equipped LCA can't safely take off from carrier so no chance for F-404 equipped trainers on carrier. Furthermore, what logic can be given for restricting fully capable fighters for just training when IAF will always be fighting with last fighter? Also how will you convert pilots to a type whose conversion trainer is significantly different from it?

 

[p2prada]

Don't know what IAF wants from its duel seat Tejas but Navy will surely use them in combat and for that they will need F-414 equipped trainers, also it is said that F-404 equipped LCA can't safely take off from carrier so no chance for F-404 equipped trainers on carrier.

For strike role you don't need as much power.

You don't need trainers on the carriers.

Furthermore, what logic can be given for restricting fully capable fighters for just training when IAF will always be fighting with last fighter?

The Mig-29KUB will have no radars. This does not mean it is not useful. The trainers cannot use the carriers, so they don't need to fight. Neither KUB nor LCA trainers are fully capable fighters. Trainers are meant to be cheap as they fly the most.

Also how will you convert pilots to a type whose conversion trainer is significantly different from it?

Quite the same as how a pilot can move from Kiran to Hawk to an MKI. The Tejas trainer and aircraft aren't significantly different. Engines are actually very similar and that would be the only difference.

IAF will use dual seat Tejas for strike roles.

 

[agentperry]

trainers are like reserves. the trainer version of any aircraft can be used as a fighter in case of war but as the cost of trainer and the payload it carries is more and less compared to the dedicated fighter version respectively they are discouraged from being used in possible conflicts until unless the force is low on assets

 

[Rahul Singh]

For strike role you don't need as much power.

Like i said IAF will be fighting with last fighter which is going to be reality in case of two front war. Question is as was, why restrict at least two jet per squadron for training and strike role only when you can make them as capable as single seat by replacing F-404 with powerful F-414?

You don't need trainers on the carriers.

You won't put trainers on carrier then how you will train pilots for carrier launch and recovery for particular type?

The Mig-29KUB will have no radars. This does not mean it is not useful. The trainers cannot use the carriers, so they don't need to fight. Neither KUB nor LCA trainers are fully capable fighters. Trainers are meant to be cheap as they fly the most.

This Mig page says KUB carries RVV-AE. How come if they don't have radar?

To my knowledge both(K and KUB) of them are carrier capable and both of them carry same avionics, armament and systems. Only difference is 'K' version has extra fuel and KUB has extra cockpit as trade off of that. Amusingly they just replace each at same place and even canopy is identical. Following video illustrates KUBs carrier compatibility.

Quite the same as how a pilot can move from Kiran to Hawk to an MKI. The Tejas trainer and aircraft aren't significantly different. Engines are actually very similar and that would be the only difference.

IAF will use dual seat Tejas for strike roles.

Type conversion training for a specific type of fighter involves flight training as well as armament training and for that they are required to be more or less same in performance and capability. Also since these are operational conversion trainers/combat capable duel seat fighters you don't restrict them for training or restricted role.

A MK-1 trainer equipped with F-404 will be significantly different from MK-2 trainer equipped with F-404 let alone one with F-414.

 

[Sancho]

Question is as was, why restrict at least two jet per squadron for training and strike role only when you can make them as capable as single seat by replacing F-404 with powerful F-414?

In case of N-LCA, you have to keep in mind that weight is always an issue for carrier fighters. The less emptyweight, the more fuel or external payload it can carry and when you then add the limitations via ski-jump take off, it will be clear that a twin seat N-LCA will have vey less payload for credible strike missions, the Mig 29KUB will clearly be the better option in this role.

To my knowledge both(K and KUB) of them are carrier capable and both of them carry same avionics, armament and systems. Only difference is 'K' version has extra fuel and KUB has extra cockpit as trade off of that.

That's correct, the twin seat is not only a trainer but a fully capable multi role fighter and this version was fielded in the MMRCA trials as well.

A MK-1 trainer equipped with F-404 will be significantly different from MK-2 trainer equipped with F-404 let alone one with F-414.

Not necessarily, the radar and avionics changes can be integrated later, what will remain different is the lack of thrust and internal fuel capacity, while the latter is not that important for a trainer anyway. However, the MK1 trainers won't be the only once, N-LCA MK1 is basically a tech demonstrator needed to develop and test the naval changes. The real prototypes for the operational carrier version will be based on MK2 as well and will include trainers too.

 

[p2prada]

Like i said IAF will be fighting with last fighter which is going to be reality in case of two front war. Question is as was, why restrict at least two jet per squadron for training and strike role only when you can make them as capable as single seat by replacing F-404 with powerful F-414?

Costs. Creating a Trainer Mk2 will increase costs of the entire LCA program by a significant margin and in the end the result is not any different from before. As for IAF and last fighter comment, the IAF does not need to convert trainers to be equivalent to a regular fighter. They will move in formations, so slightly lesser capability won't make much of a difference.

You won't put trainers on carrier then how you will train pilots for carrier launch and recovery for particular type?

We have shore based training facility. There is no guarantee LCA will be part of the fleet. Carrier landings can be achieved using regular Mk2 fighters once the pilot is ready.

This Mig page says KUB carries RVV-AE. How come if they don't have radar?

I have two reasons for it and a solution. One, the RVV-AE does not need a radar to seek a target. But seeker range is lesser. Nevertheless, not a problem.

Two. KUB, as a trainer does not really need a radar.

There is a chance the navy may decide on procuring a much higher version of the current radar or even a Zukh AESA radar for using it as a mini-AWACS. This will allow it to carry out AWACS duties along with other EW related duties. Also the 4 wet points gives it a decent refueling capability. While the refueling capability is present, we don't know for sure if the Navy will go for a mini-AWACS capability.

To my knowledge both(K and KUB) of them are carrier capable and both of them carry same avionics, armament and systems. Only difference is 'K' version has extra fuel and KUB has extra cockpit as trade off of that. Amusingly they just replace each at same place and even canopy is identical. Following video illustrates KUBs carrier compatibility.

Yeah. But IN KUBs currently don't have a radar.

Type conversion training for a specific type of fighter involves flight training as well as armament training and for that they are required to be more or less same in performance and capability. Also since these are operational conversion trainers/combat capable duel seat fighters you don't restrict them for training or restricted role.

It is not a big problem. A trainer has slightly lesser capability because power is used up for the second pilot, other than fuel and space.

A MK-1 trainer equipped with F-404 will be significantly different from MK-2 trainer equipped with F-404 let alone one with F-414.

The firing mechanism, radar capability etc will almost be the same. We are building simulators too. Other than that real life experience will teach them the rest when trainees move into squadrons.

I doubt the NP 5 will be a Mk2. It will be a Mk1 trainer version like the IAF version, but with LEVCONS, arrestor gears and such.

 

[Rahul Singh]

In case of N-LCA, you have to keep in mind that weight is always an issue for carrier fighters. The less emptyweight, the more fuel or external payload it can carry and when you then add the limitations via ski-jump take off, it will be clear that a twin seat N-LCA will have vey less payload for credible strike missions, the Mig 29KUB will clearly be the better option in this role.

Since you will need dual seat LCA abroad carrier for training you need to make sure that it is every bit capable as single seat at reduced endurance. Dead weights can not be justified abroad small carriers.

Not necessarily, the radar and avionics changes can be integrated later, what will remain different is the lack of thrust and internal fuel capacity, while the latter is not that important for a trainer anyway.

The point was, can IAF afford to have at least two jets per squadron (which are significantly less capable, comparably) when there is higher chances of she fighting with last fighter in case of two front war. I was replying to notion; there is no need of putting F-414 in IAF version of dual seat LCAs.

However, the MK1 trainers won't be the only once, N-LCA MK1 is basically a tech demonstrator needed to develop and test the naval changes. The real prototypes for the operational carrier version will be based on MK2 as well and will include trainers too.

That is why i am saying why not develop MK-2 dual seat version for IAF (considering there is no plan) as well when you are developing dual seat NLCA MK-2 anyway whose off shoot can become IAF version just like in MK-1 case?

 

[p2prada]

I would consider the LCA itself as dead weight when we have the Mig-29 here. The Mig-29 is a 500Km fighter. The LCA is a 150Km fighter. Navy has only ordered 6 LCAs to date. They say 45 in the future, but how realistic is that if they are given an option between F-35/Rafale and LCA.

I am quite sure the LCA will go on INS Vishaal and the follow ons, if at all they are inducted in a CBG.

 

[Rahul Singh]

Costs. Creating a Trainer Mk2 will increase costs of the entire LCA program by a significant margin and in the end the result is not any different from before. As for IAF and last fighter comment, the IAF does not need to convert trainers to be equivalent to a regular fighter. They will move in formations, so slightly lesser capability won't make much of a difference.

Navy will have MK-2 dual seat version regardless, air force's is just an off shoot of that as in MK-1. BTW i don't see there's much choice, you need operational conversion trainer with identical performance. MK-2 is to be significantly different from MK-1, if not then why develop MK-2 featuring elongated fuselage and powerful engine.

We have shore based training facility. There is no guarantee LCA will be part of the fleet. Carrier landings can be achieved using regular Mk2 fighters once the pilot is ready.

SBTF is to replicate a STOBAR carrier, so how can you fly off from there if you can't from carrier? And also training abroad SBTF is only intermediate you can't replicate roll and pitch which adds much to list of required skills.

I have two reasons for it and a solution. One, the RVV-AE does not need a radar to seek a target. But seeker range is lesser. Nevertheless, not a problem.

Two. KUB, as a trainer does not really need a radar.


Yeah. But IN KUBs currently don't have a radar.

Give source?

A blind shot with just terminal guidance makes a BVRAAM somewhat like a long range WVRAAM with greater failure percentage because only god can guide it to a zone where its seeker can acquire target and that's not all god has to make sure that there is only one target there. You will either need MMR for radar inputs for inertial guidance in case you want to fire RVV-AE from KUB or you will simply dump it and use R-73 in combination with IRST.

There is a chance the navy may decide on procuring a much higher version of the current radar or even a Zukh AESA radar for using it as a mini-AWACS. This will allow it to carry out AWACS duties along with other EW related duties. Also the 4 wet points gives it a decent refueling capability. While the refueling capability is present, we don't know for sure if the Navy will go for a mini-AWACS capability.

And to make use of that they will need to put them abroad carrier.

It is not a big problem. A trainer has slightly lesser capability because power is used up for the second pilot, other than fuel and space.

In that case capability of dual seat MK-2 will decrease even further making it even more unsuitable for training pilots for single seat MK-2.

The firing mechanism, radar capability etc will almost be the same. We are building simulators too. Other than that real life experience will teach them the rest when trainees move into squadrons.

I doubt the NP 5 will be a Mk2. It will be a Mk1 trainer version like the IAF version, but with LEVCONS, arrestor gears and such.

With operational conversion trainer the idea is to accommodate extra cockpit at the cost of extra fuel not to have something like so called CAT.

Still you can send trainee straight to operational fighter after training him on simulator and type conversion trainer (which is significantly less capable than single seat version and in reality is just another CAT nothing else, speaking in case of training pilots for MK-2 on dual seat MK-1) but trainee has to be either a SqLd or above. Any less will be like inviting days of AJ Training on Mig-21 FL --> combat type to --> crash back.

 

[Rahul Singh]

I would consider the LCA itself as dead weight when we have the Mig-29 here. The Mig-29 is a 500Km fighter. The LCA is a 150Km fighter. Navy has only ordered 6 LCAs to date. They say 45 in the future, but how realistic is that if they are given an option between F-35/Rafale and LCA.

I am quite sure the LCA will go on INS Vishaal and the follow ons, if at all they are inducted in a CBG.

I also agree with condition that you have best carrier capable jet in possession. Is Mig-29K one? Hell no, so what heck if LCA lacks range but gives more numbers abroad a carrier which can carry limited number of fighters and whose sole role is fleet air defense.

 

[jayadev]

LCA-Tejas has completed 1840 Test Flights successfully. (30-April-2012).

(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-222,PV3-340,LSP1-74,LSP2-207,PV5-36,LSP3-49,LSP4-49,LSP5-80,LSP7-2,NP1-1)

LCA-Tejas has completed 1844 Test Flights successfully. (04-May-2012).

(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-222,PV3-340,LSP1-74,LSP2-207,PV5-36,LSP3-50,LSP4-51,LSP5-81,LSP7-2,NP1-1)

 

[p2prada]

I also agree with condition that you have best carrier capable jet in possession. Is Mig-29K one? Hell no, so what heck if LCA lacks range but gives more numbers abroad a carrier which can carry limited number of fighters and whose sole role is fleet air defense.

The difference between LCA and Mig-29 is very little when it comes to dimensions to allow for greater numbers. It's not like we can have one extra squadron of LCAs if we take out the Mig-29s. Apart from that the number of crew quarters, rations etc will be limited for an air crew of 12-24 aircraft.

The N-LCAs will be two seaters, so that's another disadvantage unless you want the pilots to bunk on top of each others. Let's not forget they are officers, so they will have quarters that befits an officer.

Currently the Mig-29K is our best carrier capable aircraft.

 

[p2prada]

Navy will have MK-2 dual seat version regardless, air force's is just an off shoot of that as in MK-1. BTW i don't see there's much choice, you need operational conversion trainer with identical performance. MK-2 is to be significantly different from MK-1, if not then why develop MK-2 featuring elongated fuselage and powerful engine.

There are very specific needs for the Mk2 and a different set of needs for the Mk1. You don't need identical performance. Pilots are not monkeys, they can adjust to the changes a different version brings. Pilots flying F-16A/B will have no issues moving to Block 52. The same for our current pilots who are waiting for Mirages and Mig-29s to be upgraded.

SBTF is to replicate a STOBAR carrier, so how can you fly off from there if you can't from carrier? And also training abroad SBTF is only intermediate you can't replicate roll and pitch which adds much to list of required skills.

There is no saying when we will have a CATOBAR set up there. IMO, the LCAs are not meant for Gorky or Vikrant, they are meant for Vishaal which have CATOBARs. You can't replicate roll and pitch while landing or taking off anyway.

Give source?

No Mig-29 trainer has ever carried a radar. If you look closely the nose on the UB, KUB vs SMT, K are significantly different. Meaning the nose is much smaller on the trainers.

A blind shot with just terminal guidance makes a BVRAAM somewhat like a long range WVRAAM with greater failure percentage because only god can guide it to a zone where its seeker can acquire target and that's not all god has to make sure that there is only one target there. You will either need MMR for radar inputs for inertial guidance in case you want to fire RVV-AE from KUB or you will simply dump it and use R-73 in combination with IRST.

I don't mean at full range. R-77, can be fired at 18Km ranges, once the seeker head lights up.

Btw, it is you who said the KUB carries R-77, I did not. I only said the R-77 can be used without a radar. Justifying the use of it on KUB is not my work. Only simulation or training rounds are carried for training purposes. Maybe you were confused with one such round.

And to make use of that they will need to put them abroad carrier.

KUB can be used on STOBAR carriers. No problems. Having a 7 ton refueler on a carrier is a force multiplier.

In that case capability of dual seat MK-2 will decrease even further making it even more unsuitable for training pilots for single seat MK-2.

No it won't.

With operational conversion trainer the idea is to accommodate extra cockpit at the cost of extra fuel not to have something like so called CAT.

CAT = ?. (Civil Aviation?)

Still you can send trainee straight to operational fighter after training him on simulator and type conversion trainer (which is significantly less capable than single seat version and in reality is just another CAT nothing else, speaking in case of training pilots for MK-2 on dual seat MK-1) but trainee has to be either a SqLd or above. Any less will be like inviting days of AJ Training on Mig-21 FL --> combat type to --> crash back.

The problem with Mig-21 was the lack of a supersonic trainer. Not an issue now. We have pilots moving in from Hawks directly to MKIs. So, the LCA Mk1 trainer to Mk2 fighter conversion will be as easy as walking. LCA is supposedly a very easy aircraft to fly, probably the easiest in our fleet. According to F-16 test pilots, the FBW we developed makes it easier for them to fly the F-16 than their own FBW.